1. Inding v. Sandiganbayan, [G.R. No. 143047.

July 14, 2004]

RICARDO S. INDING, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for the nullification
of the September 23, 1999 Resolution [1] of the Sandiganbayan (Second Division), which denied the
petitioners omnibus motion with supplemental motion, and its Resolution dated April 25, 2000, denying
the petitioners motion for the reconsideration of the same.
The Antecedents
On January 27, 1999, an Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner Ricardo S.
Inding, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City, with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic
Act No. 3019,[2] committed as follows:
That from the period 3 January 1997 up to 9 August 1997 and for sometime prior or subsequent thereto,
in Dapitan City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
Ricardo S. Inding, a high-ranking public officer, being a Councilor of Dapitan City and as such, while in
the performance of his official functions, particularly in the operation against drug abuse, with evident bad
faith and manifest partiality, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, faked buy-bust
operations against alleged pushers or users to enable him to claim or collect from the coffers of the city
government a total amount of P30,500.00, as reimbursement for actual expenses incurred during the
alleged buy-bust operations, knowing fully well that he had no participation in the said police operations
against drugs but enabling him to collect from the coffers of the city government a total amount
of P30,500.00, thereby causing undue injury to the government as well as the public interest. [3]
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 25116 and raffled to the Second Division of the
Sandiganbayan.
On June 2, 1999, the petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion [4] for the dismissal of the case for lack of
jurisdiction over the officers charged or, in the alternative, for the referral of the case either to the Regional
Trial Court or the Municipal Trial Court for appropriate proceedings. The petitioner alleged therein that
under Administrative Order No. 270 which prescribes the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local
Government Code of 1991, he is a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City with Salary
Grade (SG) 25. He asserted that under Republic Act No. 7975, which amended Presidential Decree No.
1606, the Sandiganbayan exercises original jurisdiction to try cases involving crimes committed by officials
of local government units only if such officials occupy positions with SG 27 or higher, based on Rep. Act
No. 6758, otherwise known as the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. He contended
that under Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, the RTC, not the
Sandiganbayan, has original jurisdiction over the crime charged against him. The petitioner urged the trial
court to take judicial notice of Adm. Order No. 270.
In its comment on the omnibus motion, the Office of the Special Prosecutor asserted that the
petitioner was, at the time of the commission of the crime, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte, one of those public officers who, by express provision of Section 4 a.(1)
(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7975, [5] is classified as SG 27. Hence, the Sandiganbayan,
not the RTC, has original jurisdiction over the case, regardless of his salary grade under Adm. Order No.
270.
On September 23, 1999, the respondent Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the petitioners
omnibus motion. According to the court, the Information alleged that the petitioner has a salary grade of
27.Furthermore, Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, which amended Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, provides that
the petitioner, as a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City, has a salary grade of 27.[6]
On October 27, 1999, the petitioner filed a Supplemental Motion to his omnibus motion, [7] citing Rep.
Act No. 8294 and the ruling of this Court in Organo v. Sandiganbayan,[8] where it was declared that Rep.
Act No. 8249, the latest amendment to the law creating the Sandiganbayan, collated the provisions on the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, and that the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as a
trial court was made to depend not on the penalty imposed by law on the crimes and offenses within its
jurisdiction but on the rank and salary grade of accused government officials and employees.
In the meantime, the petitioner was conditionally arraigned on October 28, 1999 and entered a plea of
not guilty.[9]
On November 18, 1999, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Sandiganbayans September 23, 1999 Resolution.[10] The motion was, however, denied by the
Sandiganbayan in a Resolution promulgated on April 25, 2000.[11]
Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari, contending as follows:
 A. That Republic Act [No.] 8249 which took effect last 05 February 1997 made the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan as a trial court depend not only on the penalty imposed by law on the
crimes and offenses within its jurisdiction but on the rank and salary grade of accused
government officials and employees.
B. That the ruling of the Supreme Court in Lilia B. Organo versus The Sandiganbayan and the
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 133535, 09 September 1999, settles the matter on the original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as a trial court which is over public officials and employees
with rank and salary grade 27 and above.
The petitioner contends that, at the time the offense charged was allegedly committed, he was already
occupying the position of Sangguniang Panlungsod Member I with SG 25.Hence, under Section 4 of Rep.
Act No. 8249, amending Rep. Act No. 7975, it is the RTC and not the Sandiganbayan that has jurisdiction
over the offense lodged against him. He asserts that under Adm. Order No. 270, [12] Dapitan City is only a
component city, and the members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod are classified as Sangguniang
Panlungsod Members I with SG 25. Thus, Section 4 a.(1)(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of
Rep. Act No. 7975, and retained by Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 8249, does not apply to him.
On the other hand, the respondents, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, contend that Section
4 a.(1)(b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, expressly provides that the
Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over violations of Rep. Act No. 3019, as amended, committed by
the members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, withoutqualification and regardless of salary grade. They
argue that when Congress approved Rep. Act No. 7975 and Rep. Act No. 8249, it was aware that not all the
positions specifically mentioned in Section 4, subparagraph (1) were classified as SG 27, and yet were
specifically included therein, viz:
It is very clear from the aforecited provisions of law that the members of the sangguniang panlungsod are
specifically included as among those falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
A reading of the aforesaid provisions, likewise, show that the qualification as to Salary Grade 27 and
higher applies only to such officials of the executive branch other than the regional director and higher and
those specifically enumerated. To rule, otherwise, is to give a different interpretation to what the law clearly
is.
Moreover, had there been an intention to make Salary Grade 27 and higher as the sole factor to determine
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan then the lawmakers could have simply stated that
the officials of the executive branch, to fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
should have been occupying the positions with a Salary Grade of 27 and higher. But the express wordings
in both RA No. 7975 and RA No. 8249 specifically including the members of the sangguniang panlungsod,
among others, as those within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan only means that the
said sangguniang members shall be within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the said court regardless of
their Salary Grade.
In this connection too, it is well to state that the lawmakers are very well aware that not all the positions
specifically mentioned as those within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan have a
Salary Grade of 27 and higher. Yet, the legislature has explicitly made the officials so enumerated in RA
No. 7975 and RA No. 8249 as falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
because of the nature of these officials functions and responsibilities as well as the power they can wield
over their respective area of jurisdiction.[13]
The threshold issue for the Courts resolution is whether the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction
over the petitioner, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City, who was charged with
violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The Court rules in the affirmative.
Rep. Act No. 7975, entitled An Act to Strengthen the Functional and Structural Organization of the
Sandiganbayan, Amending for that Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, took effect on May 16,
1995. Section 2 thereof enumerates the cases falling within the original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. Subsequently, Rep. Act No. 7975 was amended by Rep. Act No. 8249, entitled An Act
Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No.
1606, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes. The amendatory law took effect
on February 23, 1997 and Section 4 thereof enumerates the cases now falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
For purposes of determining which of the two laws, Rep. Act No. 7975 or Rep. Act No. 8249, applies in
the present case, the reckoning period is the time of the commission of the offense.[14] Generally, the
jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be determined by the law in force at the time of the
institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the crime. [15] However, Rep. Act No. 7975, as
well as Rep. Act No. 8249, constitutes an exception thereto as it expressly states that to determine the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in cases involving violations of Rep. Act No. 3019, the reckoning period
is the time of the commission of the offense. This is plain from the last clause of the opening sentence of
paragraph (a) of these two provisions which reads:
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise [exclusive][16] original jurisdiction in all cases
involving:
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, [Book II] [17] of the Revised Penal
Code, where one or more of the principal accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the
offense:
In this case, as gleaned from the Information filed in the Sandiganbayan, the crime charged was
committed from the period of January 3, 1997 up to August 9, 1997. The applicable law, therefore, is Rep.
Act No. 7975. Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975 expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as defined in
Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, thus:
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction in all cases involving: [18]
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, [19]where
one or more of the principal accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government,
whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classified as grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic
Act No. 6758), specifically including:
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads;
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other city department heads;[20]
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;
(e) PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank;[21]
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the
Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or foundations;
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and up under the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989.
b. Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of
this section in relation to their office.[22]
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-
A.
In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 or
higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or PNP officers occupying the rank of
superintendent or higher, or their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper
Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as
the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.[23]
A plain reading of the above provision shows that, for purposes of determining the government officials
that fall within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in cases involving violations of Rep. Act No.
3019 and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, Rep. Act No. 7975 has grouped them
into five categories, to wit:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classified as grade 27 and higher. . .
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and up under the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989.
With respect to the first category, i.e., officials of the executive branch with SG 27 or higher, Rep. Act
No. 7975 further specifically included the following officials as falling within the original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan:
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads;
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other city department heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;
(e) PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank;
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the
Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or foundations;
The specific inclusion of the foregoing officials constitutes an exception to the general qualification
relating to officials of the executive branch as occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989. In other words, violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 committed by officials in the executive branch with SG
27 or higher, and the officials specifically enumerated in (a) to (g) of Section 4 a.(1) of P.D. No. 1606, as
amended by Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, regardless of their salary grades, likewise fall within the
original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Had it been the intention of Congress to confine the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to
violations of Rep. Act No. 3019 only to officials in the executive branch with SG 27 or higher, then it could
just have ended paragraph (1) of Section 4 a. of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of Rep. Act No.
7975, with the phrase officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989. Or the category in paragraph (5) of the same provision relating to [a]ll other national and local
officials classified as Grade 27 and up under the Compensation and Classification Act of 1989 would have
sufficed. Instead, under paragraph (1) of Section 4 a. of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of Rep.
Act No. 7975, Congress included specific officials, without any reference as to their salary grades. Clearly,
therefore, Congress intended these officials, regardless of their salary grades, to be specifically included
within the Sandiganbayans original jurisdiction, for had it been otherwise, then there would have been no
need for such enumeration. It is axiomatic in legal hermeneutics that words in a statute should not be
construed as surplusage if a reasonable construction which will give them some force and meaning is
possible.[24]
That the legislators intended to include certain public officials, regardless of their salary grades, within
the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is apparent from the legislative history of both Rep. Acts
Nos. 7975 and 8249. In his sponsorship speech of Senate Bill No. 1353, which was substantially adopted
by both Houses of Congress and became Rep. Act No. 7975, Senator Raul S. Roco, then Chairman of the
Committee on Justice and Human Rights, explained:
Senate Bill No. 1353 modifies the present jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan such that only those
occupying high positions in the government and the military fall under the jurisdiction of the court.
As proposed by the Committee, the Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction over cases assigned
to it only in instances where one or more of the principal accused are officials occupying the positions of
regional director and higher or are otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher by the Compensation and
Classification Act of 1989, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity at the time of the
commission of the offense. The jurisdiction, therefore, refers to a certain grade upwards, which shall
remain with the Sandiganbayan.
The President of the Philippines and other impeachable officers such as the justices of the Supreme Court
and constitutional commissions are not subject to the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan during
their incumbency.
The bill provides for an extensive listing of other public officers who will be subject to the original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It includes, among others, Members of Congress, judges and justices of
all courts.[25]
More instructive is the sponsorship speech, again, of Senator Roco, of Senate Bill No. 844, which was
substantially adopted by both Houses of Congress and became Rep. Act No. 8249. Senator Roco explained
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in Rep. Act No. 7975, thus:
SPONSORSHIP OF SENATOR ROCO
By way of sponsorship, Mr. President we will issue the full sponsorship speech to the members because it
is fairly technical may we say the following things:
To speed up trial in the Sandiganbayan, Republic Act No. 7975 was enacted for that Court to concentrate
on the larger fish and leave the small fry to the lower courts. This law became effective on May 6, 1995 and
it provided a two-pronged solution to the clogging of the dockets of that court, to wit:
It divested the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over public officials whose salary grades were at Grade 26 or
lower, devolving thereby these cases to the lower courts, and retaining the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan only over public officials whose salary grades were at Grade 27 or higher and over other
specific public officials holding important positions in government regardless of salary grade;[26]
Evidently, the officials enumerated in (a) to (g) Section 4 a.(1) of P.D. No. 1606, amended Section 2 of
Rep. Act No. 7975, were specifically included within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan because
the lawmakers considered them big fish and their positions important, regardless of their salary grades.
This conclusion is further bolstered by the fact that some of the officials enumerated in (a) to (g) are
not classified as SG 27 or higher under the Index of Occupational Services, Position Titles and Salary
Grades issued by the Department of Budget and Management in 1989, then in effect at the time that Rep.
Act No. 7975 was approved. For example:
Category New Position Title Grade
16. FOREIGN RELATIONS SERVICE
Foreign Service
Foreign Service Officer, Class II[27] 23[28]
Foreign Service Officer, Class I[29] 24[30]
18. EXECUTIVE SERVICE
Local Executives
City Government Department Head I 24[31]
City Government Department Head II 26[32]
Provincial Government Department Head 25[33]
City Vice Mayor I 26
City Vice Mayor II 28
City Mayor I 28[34]
City Mayor II 30
19. LEGISLATIVE SERVICE
Sangguniang Members
Sangguniang Panlungsod Member I 25
Sangguniang Panlungsod Member II 27
Sangguniang Panlalawigan Member 26[35]
Office of the City and Provincial Prosecutors[36]
Prosecutor IV 29
Prosecutor III 28
Prosecutor II 27
Prosecutor I 26
Noticeably, the vice mayors, members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and prosecutors, without any
distinction or qualification, were specifically included in Rep. Act No. 7975 as falling within the original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Moreover, the consuls, city department heads, provincial department
heads and members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, albeit classified as having salary grades 26 or
lower, were also specifically included within the Sandiganbayans original jurisdiction. As correctly posited
by the respondents, Congress is presumed to have been aware of, and had taken into account, these
officials respective salary grades when it deliberated upon the amendments to the Sandiganbayan
jurisdiction. Nonetheless, Congress passed into law Rep. Act No. 7975, specifically including them within
the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. By doing so, it obviously intended cases mentioned in
Section 4 a. of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, when committed by the
officials enumerated in (1) (a) to (g) thereof, regardless of their salary grades, to be tried by the
Sandiganbayan.
Indeed, it is a basic precept in statutory construction that the intent of the legislature is the
controlling factor in the interpretation of a statute. [37] From the congressional records and the text of Rep.
Acts No. 7975 and 8294, the legislature undoubtedly intended the officials enumerated in (a) to (g) of
Section 4 a.(1) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by the aforesaid subsequent laws, to be included within the
original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Following this disquisition, the paragraph of Section 4 which provides that if the accused is occupying
a position lower than SG 27, the proper trial court has jurisdiction, [38] can only be properly interpreted as
applying to those cases where the principal accused is occupying a position lower than SG 27 and not
among those specifically included in the enumeration in Section 4 a. (1)(a) to (g). Stated otherwise, except
for those officials specifically included in Section 4 a. (1) (a) to (g), regardless of their salary grades, over
whom the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, all other public officials below SG 27 shall be under the
jurisdiction of the proper trial courts where none of the principal accused are occupying positions
corresponding to SG 27 or higher. By this construction, the entire Section 4 is given effect. The cardinal
rule, after all, in statutory construction is that the particular words, clauses and phrases should not be
studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be
considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole. [39] And
courts should adopt a construction that will give effect to every part of a statute, if at all possible. Ut magis
valeat quam pereat or that construction is to be sought which gives effect to the whole of the statute its
every word.[40]
In this case, there is no dispute that the petitioner is a member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Dapitan City and he is charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of Rep. Act No. 3019.Members
of the Sangguniang Panlungsod are specifically included as among those within the original jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan in Section 4 a.(1) (b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975,
[41]
or even Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 8249[42] for that matter. The Sandiganbayan, therefore, has original
jurisdiction over the petitioners case docketed as Criminal Case No. 25116.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED. The Resolutions of the
Sandiganbayan dated September 23, 1999 and April 25, 2000 are AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.